News

Cyclists given safety advice by ambulance service

THE ambulance service has issued advice to cyclists to stop them getting injured or killed on the roads this summer.

The West Midlands Ambulance Service has issued the advice to cyclists during Road Safety Week, including wearing a helmet, reflective clothing and having lights on their bike, especially at night.

Other advice to cyclists includes positioning themselves correctly on the road and maintaining their bikes.

Nick Crombie, medical lead for Midlands Air Ambulance, said: “I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet, it just makes perfect sense to me doing this job, but whether people do or not is entirely an individual decision.

“Children, however, are not as aware of traffic, they’re not aware of the rules of the road and the highway code as well as adults are, and they end up disproportionately having more cycling accidents than any other age group.

“Whether or not you choose to wear a helmet is up to you but please make your children wear a helmet until they are old enough to make their own decision.”

As someone who cycles up/down Tallow Hill most days, I often have to swerve off the cycle lane and into traffic near Byfield Rise when heading towards town and from Wickes when heading away from town because motorists trying to pull out onto Tallow Hill stop IN the cycle lane.

A lot of cyclists are really unsafe and can cause road rage, but so can a lot of car drivers. Please don't blame all of us for the select idiots!

As someone who cycles up/down Tallow Hill most days, I often have to swerve off the cycle lane and into traffic near Byfield Rise when heading towards town and from Wickes when heading away from town because motorists trying to pull out onto Tallow Hill stop IN the cycle lane.
A lot of cyclists are really unsafe and can cause road rage, but so can a lot of car drivers. Please don't blame all of us for the select idiots!JackTheSecond

Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.

So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.

Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?

“I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet"
Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.
So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.
Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?Tobster

Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.

So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.

Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?

Get a crash helmet then!

They are known to save lives

[quote][p][bold]Tobster[/bold] wrote:
“I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet"
Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.
So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.
Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?[/p][/quote]Get a crash helmet then!
They are known to save livesMJI

Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.

So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.

Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?

Could you give some links or sources for this? Would be interesting to see for my own eyes.

[quote][p][bold]Tobster[/bold] wrote:
“I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet"
Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.
So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.
Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?[/p][/quote]Could you give some links or sources for this? Would be interesting to see for my own eyes.JackTheSecond

I had two 'white van men' nearly knock me off last week when they jumped the red at the bottom of Newtown Road.

[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote:
Not jumping red lights would be a good start.[/p][/quote]Hwicce. Agree 100%.
I had two 'white van men' nearly knock me off last week when they jumped the red at the bottom of Newtown Road.i-cycle

I had two 'white van men' nearly knock me off last week when they jumped the red at the bottom of Newtown Road.

I think the might have been referring to cyclists jumping them, both ways it's wrong.

[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote:
Not jumping red lights would be a good start.[/p][/quote]Hwicce. Agree 100%.
I had two 'white van men' nearly knock me off last week when they jumped the red at the bottom of Newtown Road.[/p][/quote]I think the might have been referring to cyclists jumping them, both ways it's wrong.JackTheSecond

Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.

So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.

Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?

Could you give some links or sources for this? Would be interesting to see for my own eyes.

HI Jack. Without boring you with the detail, this appears to provide a balanced summary of the pros and cons.

[quote][p][bold]JackTheSecond[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tobster[/bold] wrote:
“I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet"
Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.
So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.
Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?[/p][/quote]Could you give some links or sources for this? Would be interesting to see for my own eyes.[/p][/quote]HI Jack. Without boring you with the detail, this appears to provide a balanced summary of the pros and cons.
http://www.thetimes.
co.uk/tto/public/cyc
lesafety/article3495
439.ecei-cycle

I had two 'white van men' nearly knock me off last week when they jumped the red at the bottom of Newtown Road.

I think the might have been referring to cyclists jumping them, both ways it's wrong.

Exactly.

All road users should be encouraged to respect the law, take greater personal responsibility for their own safety and be considerate to others. If we all focussed on this rather than getting involved in the blame game then our roads would be even safer.

The County Council and Government should also be doing more to provide safer routes for cyclists and pedestrians. In doing so more will cycle and walk for some of those shorter journeys and motorists would benefit from less congestion.

The us vs them 'argument' between cyclists and motorists is not only pointless, its counter-productive.

[quote][p][bold]JackTheSecond[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote:
Not jumping red lights would be a good start.[/p][/quote]Hwicce. Agree 100%.
I had two 'white van men' nearly knock me off last week when they jumped the red at the bottom of Newtown Road.[/p][/quote]I think the might have been referring to cyclists jumping them, both ways it's wrong.[/p][/quote]Exactly.
All road users should be encouraged to respect the law, take greater personal responsibility for their own safety and be considerate to others. If we all focussed on this rather than getting involved in the blame game then our roads would be even safer.
The County Council and Government should also be doing more to provide safer routes for cyclists and pedestrians. In doing so more will cycle and walk for some of those shorter journeys and motorists would benefit from less congestion.
The us vs them 'argument' between cyclists and motorists is not only pointless, its counter-productive.i-cycle

Some other useful links below. The bicyclesafe article would also make good reading for responsible motorists (representing, like cyclists, the vast majority) as it brings home some vulnerabilities for cyclists. And cyclists, when you're driving (yes, almost all also have cars) study the cyclists you come across to learn what makes them more visible and safe.

Above all, see cycle safety in perspective. Fatalities, though tragic and frequently avoidable, are very rare. Statistically health benefits outweigh any safety risks ten-fold. There are few traffic jams, even in Worcester. And it's fun.

Some other useful links below. The bicyclesafe article would also make good reading for responsible motorists (representing, like cyclists, the vast majority) as it brings home some vulnerabilities for cyclists. And cyclists, when you're driving (yes, almost all also have cars) study the cyclists you come across to learn what makes them more visible and safe.
http://www.theguardi
an.com/travel/2012/m
ay/05/urban-cycling-
safety-tips
http://bicyclesafe.c
om/ (US so swap left for right)
http://www.nhs.uk/Li
vewell/Roadsafety/Pa
ges/Cyclists.aspx
Above all, see cycle safety in perspective. Fatalities, though tragic and frequently avoidable, are very rare. Statistically health benefits outweigh any safety risks ten-fold. There are few traffic jams, even in Worcester. And it's fun.St Jon

Genepaulkev wrote:
Helmets should be made compulsory, if not for all certainly for children, those who value their hairstyle over their lives need saving from themselves IMHO!

When calculated per mile, you're now (2012 DfT stats) just as likely to be killed as a pedestrian as a cyclist, yet nobody is suggesting pedestrians should be forced to wear helmets (or Hi-viz/lights).

One cyclist is killed per 31 Million miles travelled (that's c. 12,000 times around the world)

I appreciate you clearly state you're offering an opinion, but if there was a case for making helmets compulsory to reduce road deaths, then it would have hardly any impact for all the additional cost, inconvenience and enforcement needed for ensuring full compliance.

In those countries where it has been made a legal requirement there has been no reduction in the rate of head injuries, but cycling levels have reduced with the consequent adverse impacts on personal health through lack of regular activity.

That's why the extensive DfT report in 2009 concluded there was no case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists.

I do wear a helmet, but that's out of personal choice and in the knowledge that it offers very limited added protection in low speed collisions and certainly not when involved with a vehicle.

If you really want to improve safety for cyclists its much better to teach them to cycle defensively to avoid being hit by vehicles in the first place.

[quote][p][bold]Genepaulkev[/bold] wrote:
Helmets should be made compulsory, if not for all certainly for children, those who value their hairstyle over their lives need saving from themselves IMHO![/p][/quote]When calculated per mile, you're now (2012 DfT stats) just as likely to be killed as a pedestrian as a cyclist, yet nobody is suggesting pedestrians should be forced to wear helmets (or Hi-viz/lights).
One cyclist is killed per 31 Million miles travelled (that's c. 12,000 times around the world)
I appreciate you clearly state you're offering an opinion, but if there was a case for making helmets compulsory to reduce road deaths, then it would have hardly any impact for all the additional cost, inconvenience and enforcement needed for ensuring full compliance.
In those countries where it has been made a legal requirement there has been no reduction in the rate of head injuries, but cycling levels have reduced with the consequent adverse impacts on personal health through lack of regular activity.
That's why the extensive DfT report in 2009 concluded there was no case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists.
I do wear a helmet, but that's out of personal choice and in the knowledge that it offers very limited added protection in low speed collisions and certainly not when involved with a vehicle.
If you really want to improve safety for cyclists its much better to teach them to cycle defensively to avoid being hit by vehicles in the first place.3thinker

Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.

So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.

Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?

Well, if by "save lives" you mean save someone's brains from serious life threatening injury, then see www.carrsq.qut.edu.a
u
Approved bike helmets help prevent the brain 'scramble' that happens when a cyclist is thrown at force from their bike. In many single bike accidents helmets save childrens' lives. Approved bike helmets are there to stopt blunt force injury to the brain as well as brain scrambling. In some vehicle collisions, nothing would save a cyclist, apart, from separation from motor vehicles, provided by a cycle path. So protecting your life means protecting you skull and brain.
Respect for road rules to incorporate cycling into mainstream traffic requires changes to make cyclists legally liable, if they transgress road rules, as well as motorists if they threaten the safety of cyclists who are legally entitled to be there.

[quote][p][bold]Tobster[/bold] wrote:
“I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet"
Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.
So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.
Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?[/p][/quote]Well, if by "save lives" you mean save someone's brains from serious life threatening injury, then see www.carrsq.qut.edu.a
u
Approved bike helmets help prevent the brain 'scramble' that happens when a cyclist is thrown at force from their bike. In many single bike accidents helmets save childrens' lives. Approved bike helmets are there to stopt blunt force injury to the brain as well as brain scrambling. In some vehicle collisions, nothing would save a cyclist, apart, from separation from motor vehicles, provided by a cycle path. So protecting your life means protecting you skull and brain.
Respect for road rules to incorporate cycling into mainstream traffic requires changes to make cyclists legally liable, if they transgress road rules, as well as motorists if they threaten the safety of cyclists who are legally entitled to be there.Rita Jelfs

"Nick Crombie, medical lead for Midlands Air Ambulance, said: “I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet, it just makes perfect sense to me doing this job, but whether people do or not is entirely an individual decision."

Well Nick, there are any number of reasons not to wear a helmet, starting with the fact that they don't reduce risk. All the long term, large scale, reliable and robust evidence shows clearly that increased helmet wearing is not associated with reduced risk. When they introduced the helmet law in Australia, the number of cyclist deaths fell, so it was declared a success, but the number of cyclists fell by more than the death rate, so cycling actually became more dangerous.

The trouble with ambulance staff giving safety advice is that they only see the effects of collisions and accidents, they don't see the vast number of people who get obese because they don't get exercise. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer and are fitter, healthier and wealthier than general, so not cycling is more dangerous than cycling.

Helmet promotion like this has two effects; a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit. In the middle of an obesity epidemic largely caused by lack of exercise, the promotion of helmets when there is no proven benefit and massive unintended negative consequences is irresponsible in the extreme.

Nick Crombie and your readers can find the facts at cyclehelmets.org

"Nick Crombie, medical lead for Midlands Air Ambulance, said: “I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet, it just makes perfect sense to me doing this job, but whether people do or not is entirely an individual decision."
Well Nick, there are any number of reasons not to wear a helmet, starting with the fact that they don't reduce risk. All the long term, large scale, reliable and robust evidence shows clearly that increased helmet wearing is not associated with reduced risk. When they introduced the helmet law in Australia, the number of cyclist deaths fell, so it was declared a success, but the number of cyclists fell by more than the death rate, so cycling actually became more dangerous.
The trouble with ambulance staff giving safety advice is that they only see the effects of collisions and accidents, they don't see the vast number of people who get obese because they don't get exercise. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer and are fitter, healthier and wealthier than general, so not cycling is more dangerous than cycling.
Helmet promotion like this has two effects; a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit. In the middle of an obesity epidemic largely caused by lack of exercise, the promotion of helmets when there is no proven benefit and massive unintended negative consequences is irresponsible in the extreme.
Nick Crombie and your readers can find the facts at cyclehelmets.orgburtthebike

Years ago, I was downhilling in Wales, and a friend of mine went over the bars after hitting a rain gully at ~30mph. His frame broke at the downtube / headtube weld, and his helmet was smashed into 3 pieces. Aside from a sore neck, his head stayed intact. +1 for helmet use off road.

On the road however, I find a helmet obstructs my vision sometimes, and just makes me a little less comfortable on the bike, possibly reducing my concentration? It's a calculated risk, but I prefer not to use one on the road.

Years ago, I was downhilling in Wales, and a friend of mine went over the bars after hitting a rain gully at ~30mph. His frame broke at the downtube / headtube weld, and his helmet was smashed into 3 pieces. Aside from a sore neck, his head stayed intact. +1 for helmet use off road.
On the road however, I find a helmet obstructs my vision sometimes, and just makes me a little less comfortable on the bike, possibly reducing my concentration? It's a calculated risk, but I prefer not to use one on the road.Andy-Apache

I don't think anyone is saying that helmets shouldn't be recommended (and particularly for children). Its just that there isn't a strong enough case for making them compulsory.

That said even recommending them has unintended consequencies (especially in the UK) as by doing so re-enforces perceptions that cycling is excessively dangerous when all the statistics show its not much more dangerous than being pedestrian and certainly far safer than playing rugby and other sports.

Making helmets compulsory has also been proven elsewhere to reduce cycling and therefore the health benefits of regular exercise.

I sense a little confusion coming into the debate.
I don't think anyone is saying that helmets shouldn't be recommended (and particularly for children). Its just that there isn't a strong enough case for making them compulsory.
That said even recommending them has unintended consequencies (especially in the UK) as by doing so re-enforces perceptions that cycling is excessively dangerous when all the statistics show its not much more dangerous than being pedestrian and certainly far safer than playing rugby and other sports.
Making helmets compulsory has also been proven elsewhere to reduce cycling and therefore the health benefits of regular exercise.3thinker

Andy-Apache wrote:
Years ago, I was downhilling in Wales, and a friend of mine went over the bars after hitting a rain gully at ~30mph. His frame broke at the downtube / headtube weld, and his helmet was smashed into 3 pieces. Aside from a sore neck, his head stayed intact. +1 for helmet use off road.

On the road however, I find a helmet obstructs my vision sometimes, and just makes me a little less comfortable on the bike, possibly reducing my concentration? It's a calculated risk, but I prefer not to use one on the road.

You're correct. There's a much stronger case for wearing a helmet when mountain biking when most impacts are at lower speeds and mainly because you're very unlikely to be hit by a car!

[quote][p][bold]Andy-Apache[/bold] wrote:
Years ago, I was downhilling in Wales, and a friend of mine went over the bars after hitting a rain gully at ~30mph. His frame broke at the downtube / headtube weld, and his helmet was smashed into 3 pieces. Aside from a sore neck, his head stayed intact. +1 for helmet use off road.
On the road however, I find a helmet obstructs my vision sometimes, and just makes me a little less comfortable on the bike, possibly reducing my concentration? It's a calculated risk, but I prefer not to use one on the road.[/p][/quote]You're correct. There's a much stronger case for wearing a helmet when mountain biking when most impacts are at lower speeds and mainly because you're very unlikely to be hit by a car!3thinker

3:10pm Monday 11th November 2013 in Fair Point Worcester News: Photograph of the Author By James Connell

AS the obesity epidemic spreads, boffins predict that by the year 3050 human beings will have overtaken the blue whale as the largest mammal on earth.

Forget rising sea levels – the human race will already have drowned in a sea of lard, grease and chip fat as we waddle our way to a self-inflicted Armageddon.

Meanwhile, an army of gurus, quacks and false prophets are laughing all the way to the bank as they climb the soap box (or should that be the biscuit tin?) to tell us the best way to lose weight before our collective mass throws the earth out of orbit and we spiral uncontrollably into the freezing abyss of space.

One of the solutions some advance to combat our expanding girth is cycling.

Dear God. No.

Let’s face it, cyclists are a nuisance and should be banned from the roads immediately.

I would rather see more fat people than cyclists.

What is it about climbing into a saddle that suddenly causes human beings to abandon common sense, reason and common courtesy? Is there some hidden property in Lycra that turns people into complete prats?

Are those shorts so tight they cut off the oxygen supply to the brain? I’ve lost count of the times these muppets have nearly mown me down on the Sabrina Bridge.

Now, in the interests of fairness, they are riding on a cycle lane and they have every right to be there.

But it’s like they think they’re Bradley Wiggins.

On the road they behave like spoiled brats, breaking every rule motorists are forced to slavishly obey – or risk having their licence taken off them.

In the last week I’ve seen a cyclist ride at full speed across a zebra crossing without looking before flipping the finger at a helpless driver who had to anchor on to avoid knocking the idiot off his bike.

I would have been tempted to put my foot down.

They regularly go through red lights or ride two abreast as if to deliberately obstruct drivers.

The rules just don’t apply to these “lycra loonies” as one of our readers dubbed them.

While we’re on the subject we should also ban horses from the roads.

“Horses were there first” someone will whinge. Yes they were. So was feudalism.

What’s your point again? If cyclists want to ride I suggest they talk to India. They have a burgeoning space programme. I hear Mars is nice at this time of year.

According to those anti cycling loonies at the Worcester News, cycling should be banned anyway, helmets or not.
http://www.worcester
news.co.uk/features/
fairpoint/10800707.C
yclists_are_a_nuisan
ce_on_the_road/
Cyclists are a nuisance on the road
3:10pm Monday 11th November 2013 in Fair Point Worcester News: Photograph of the Author By James Connell
AS the obesity epidemic spreads, boffins predict that by the year 3050 human beings will have overtaken the blue whale as the largest mammal on earth.
Forget rising sea levels – the human race will already have drowned in a sea of lard, grease and chip fat as we waddle our way to a self-inflicted Armageddon.
Meanwhile, an army of gurus, quacks and false prophets are laughing all the way to the bank as they climb the soap box (or should that be the biscuit tin?) to tell us the best way to lose weight before our collective mass throws the earth out of orbit and we spiral uncontrollably into the freezing abyss of space.
One of the solutions some advance to combat our expanding girth is cycling.
Dear God. No.
Let’s face it, cyclists are a nuisance and should be banned from the roads immediately.
I would rather see more fat people than cyclists.
What is it about climbing into a saddle that suddenly causes human beings to abandon common sense, reason and common courtesy? Is there some hidden property in Lycra that turns people into complete prats?
Are those shorts so tight they cut off the oxygen supply to the brain? I’ve lost count of the times these muppets have nearly mown me down on the Sabrina Bridge.
Now, in the interests of fairness, they are riding on a cycle lane and they have every right to be there.
But it’s like they think they’re Bradley Wiggins.
On the road they behave like spoiled brats, breaking every rule motorists are forced to slavishly obey – or risk having their licence taken off them.
In the last week I’ve seen a cyclist ride at full speed across a zebra crossing without looking before flipping the finger at a helpless driver who had to anchor on to avoid knocking the idiot off his bike.
I would have been tempted to put my foot down.
They regularly go through red lights or ride two abreast as if to deliberately obstruct drivers.
The rules just don’t apply to these “lycra loonies” as one of our readers dubbed them.
While we’re on the subject we should also ban horses from the roads.
“Horses were there first” someone will whinge. Yes they were. So was feudalism.
What’s your point again? If cyclists want to ride I suggest they talk to India. They have a burgeoning space programme. I hear Mars is nice at this time of year.Bufton Tufton

quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.

They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their "hobby" regardless of how sensible.

...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....

quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.
They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their "hobby" regardless of how sensible.
...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....DarrenM

DarrenM wrote:
quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.

They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their &quot;hobby" regardless of how sensible.

...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....

Then I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I wear a helmet, hi-viz and ensure I have lights at night and recommend the same for other cyclists. There is however no stronger case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists as opposed to pedestrians and even motorists. There are certainly no signs nationally that this is on any political agendas.

However the single biggest step for making residential roads, where most of the deaths and serious injuries occur, safer is the introduction of 20mph. This is Labour, Lib Dem and Green Party policy and its even recommended by the Government that all Highway Authorities consider the introduction, as appropriate, in their areas. After looking at all the facts more councils are now adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets and with majority support being demonstrated in the annual Social Attitudes Survey, i.e. the people who vote for councillors. Perhaps why the DfT have now commissioned a detailed study to look at whether the 20mph does actually deliver some or all of the benefits stated.

I'm sure as a road safety expert you'll be ken to support any measures that make the roads safer to use for all Highway users including the more vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote:
quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.
They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their "hobby" regardless of how sensible.
...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....[/p][/quote]Then I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I wear a helmet, hi-viz and ensure I have lights at night and recommend the same for other cyclists. There is however no stronger case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists as opposed to pedestrians and even motorists. There are certainly no signs nationally that this is on any political agendas.
However the single biggest step for making residential roads, where most of the deaths and serious injuries occur, safer is the introduction of 20mph. This is Labour, Lib Dem and Green Party policy and its even recommended by the Government that all Highway Authorities consider the introduction, as appropriate, in their areas. After looking at all the facts more councils are now adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets and with majority support being demonstrated in the annual Social Attitudes Survey, i.e. the people who vote for councillors. Perhaps why the DfT have now commissioned a detailed study to look at whether the 20mph does actually deliver some or all of the benefits stated.
I'm sure as a road safety expert you'll be ken to support any measures that make the roads safer to use for all Highway users including the more vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.i-cycle

DarrenM wrote:
quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.

They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their &quot;hobby" regardless of how sensible.

...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....

Then I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I wear a helmet, hi-viz and ensure I have lights at night and recommend the same for other cyclists. There is however no stronger case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists as opposed to pedestrians and even motorists. There are certainly no signs nationally that this is on any political agendas.

However the single biggest step for making residential roads, where most of the deaths and serious injuries occur, safer is the introduction of 20mph. This is Labour, Lib Dem and Green Party policy and its even recommended by the Government that all Highway Authorities consider the introduction, as appropriate, in their areas. After looking at all the facts more councils are now adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets and with majority support being demonstrated in the annual Social Attitudes Survey, i.e. the people who vote for councillors. Perhaps why the DfT have now commissioned a detailed study to look at whether the 20mph does actually deliver some or all of the benefits stated.

I'm sure as a road safety expert you'll be ken to support any measures that make the roads safer to use for all Highway users including the more vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

and while we're talking about the DFT 2012 figures further up the thread , there seems to be no comment on the same stats which also show that cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012, compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.

As a pedestrian you're only slightly more likely to be injured by a car than a cyclist.....

[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote:
quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.
They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their "hobby" regardless of how sensible.
...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....[/p][/quote]Then I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I wear a helmet, hi-viz and ensure I have lights at night and recommend the same for other cyclists. There is however no stronger case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists as opposed to pedestrians and even motorists. There are certainly no signs nationally that this is on any political agendas.
However the single biggest step for making residential roads, where most of the deaths and serious injuries occur, safer is the introduction of 20mph. This is Labour, Lib Dem and Green Party policy and its even recommended by the Government that all Highway Authorities consider the introduction, as appropriate, in their areas. After looking at all the facts more councils are now adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets and with majority support being demonstrated in the annual Social Attitudes Survey, i.e. the people who vote for councillors. Perhaps why the DfT have now commissioned a detailed study to look at whether the 20mph does actually deliver some or all of the benefits stated.
I'm sure as a road safety expert you'll be ken to support any measures that make the roads safer to use for all Highway users including the more vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.[/p][/quote]and while we're talking about the DFT 2012 figures further up the thread , there seems to be no comment on the same stats which also show that cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012, compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.
As a pedestrian you're only slightly more likely to be injured by a car than a cyclist.....DarrenM

DarrenM wrote:
quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.

They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their &quot;hobby" regardless of how sensible.

...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....

Then I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I wear a helmet, hi-viz and ensure I have lights at night and recommend the same for other cyclists. There is however no stronger case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists as opposed to pedestrians and even motorists. There are certainly no signs nationally that this is on any political agendas.

However the single biggest step for making residential roads, where most of the deaths and serious injuries occur, safer is the introduction of 20mph. This is Labour, Lib Dem and Green Party policy and its even recommended by the Government that all Highway Authorities consider the introduction, as appropriate, in their areas. After looking at all the facts more councils are now adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets and with majority support being demonstrated in the annual Social Attitudes Survey, i.e. the people who vote for councillors. Perhaps why the DfT have now commissioned a detailed study to look at whether the 20mph does actually deliver some or all of the benefits stated.

I'm sure as a road safety expert you'll be ken to support any measures that make the roads safer to use for all Highway users including the more vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

and while we're talking about the DFT 2012 figures further up the thread , there seems to be no comment on the same stats which also show that cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012, compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.

As a pedestrian you're only slightly more likely to be injured by a car than a cyclist.....

Err. Nope.

1 pedestrian was killed and 78 were seriously injured by cyclists

253 pedestrians were killed and 4,426 were seriously injured by motorists.

A pedestrian is therefore 253 times more likely to be killed and 57 times more likely to be seriously injured by a motorist.

You are however quite correct in pointing out that cyclists need to act more responsibly, and certainly not ride on pavements illegally. Its also points to the fact that cyclists should be giving more audible warnings that they are approaching as many of the injuries are caused by pedestrians stepping out in front of cyclists because they didn't hear them and probably as a result didn't bother to look.

As I've always said the roads would be safer for all if everyone obeyed the law and gave greater consideration for other road users. Any chance we can at least agree on the last statement Darren :)

[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote:
quite amusing all the down votes from the cycling fraternity on the comments suggesting they should have to wear appropriate PPE.
They're all immediately against suggestion of any form of compulsory regulation on their "hobby" regardless of how sensible.
...fortunately they'll all going to be in for a great shock in the next couple of years.... say no more.....[/p][/quote]Then I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I wear a helmet, hi-viz and ensure I have lights at night and recommend the same for other cyclists. There is however no stronger case for making helmet wearing compulsory for cyclists as opposed to pedestrians and even motorists. There are certainly no signs nationally that this is on any political agendas.
However the single biggest step for making residential roads, where most of the deaths and serious injuries occur, safer is the introduction of 20mph. This is Labour, Lib Dem and Green Party policy and its even recommended by the Government that all Highway Authorities consider the introduction, as appropriate, in their areas. After looking at all the facts more councils are now adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets and with majority support being demonstrated in the annual Social Attitudes Survey, i.e. the people who vote for councillors. Perhaps why the DfT have now commissioned a detailed study to look at whether the 20mph does actually deliver some or all of the benefits stated.
I'm sure as a road safety expert you'll be ken to support any measures that make the roads safer to use for all Highway users including the more vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.[/p][/quote]and while we're talking about the DFT 2012 figures further up the thread , there seems to be no comment on the same stats which also show that cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012, compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.
As a pedestrian you're only slightly more likely to be injured by a car than a cyclist.....[/p][/quote]Err. Nope.
1 pedestrian was killed and 78 were seriously injured by cyclists
253 pedestrians were killed and 4,426 were seriously injured by motorists.
A pedestrian is therefore 253 times more likely to be killed and 57 times more likely to be seriously injured by a motorist.
You are however quite correct in pointing out that cyclists need to act more responsibly, and certainly not ride on pavements illegally. Its also points to the fact that cyclists should be giving more audible warnings that they are approaching as many of the injuries are caused by pedestrians stepping out in front of cyclists because they didn't hear them and probably as a result didn't bother to look.
As I've always said the roads would be safer for all if everyone obeyed the law and gave greater consideration for other road users. Any chance we can at least agree on the last statement Darren :)i-cycle

The thing is in several European countries bikes filtering on while lights are on red is encouraged as bikes, being slower, get an opportunity to remove themselves from the danger of vehicles behind. I understand trials are being discussed / considered for the UK.

If you have got buses, vans or trucks behind you at lights and can see the junction ahead is clear it is in everyone's interest that you get going. Fact.

[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote:
Not jumping red lights would be a good start.[/p][/quote]Here come the cycle-haters again.
The thing is in several European countries bikes filtering on while lights are on red is encouraged as bikes, being slower, get an opportunity to remove themselves from the danger of vehicles behind. I understand trials are being discussed / considered for the UK.
If you have got buses, vans or trucks behind you at lights and can see the junction ahead is clear it is in everyone's interest that you get going. Fact.GeeRDee

The thing is in several European countries bikes filtering on while lights are on red is encouraged as bikes, being slower, get an opportunity to remove themselves from the danger of vehicles behind. I understand trials are being discussed / considered for the UK.

If you have got buses, vans or trucks behind you at lights and can see the junction ahead is clear it is in everyone's interest that you get going. Fact.

Correct.

These countries allow cyclists to filter on a red as it significantly reduces the risk of deaths and serious injuries, many of which happen at junctions.

In many cases its actually safer to jump a red, but as its not legal I don't think anyone should do it and especially as you can see the reaction form certain sections of the motoring lobby.

I'm sure, like me most cyclists have regularly experienced occasions when drivers have deliberately pulled close to the kerb and parked on advance stop boxes deliberately because they don't like us. The fact that the latter is also illegal and shouldn't happen hardly ever gets mentioned.

I do however re-iterate that all cyclists should obey the rules of the road and be considerate to other road users including pedestrians. Its counter productive not to.

[quote][p][bold]GeeRDee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote:
Not jumping red lights would be a good start.[/p][/quote]Here come the cycle-haters again.
The thing is in several European countries bikes filtering on while lights are on red is encouraged as bikes, being slower, get an opportunity to remove themselves from the danger of vehicles behind. I understand trials are being discussed / considered for the UK.
If you have got buses, vans or trucks behind you at lights and can see the junction ahead is clear it is in everyone's interest that you get going. Fact.[/p][/quote]Correct.
These countries allow cyclists to filter on a red as it significantly reduces the risk of deaths and serious injuries, many of which happen at junctions.
In many cases its actually safer to jump a red, but as its not legal I don't think anyone should do it and especially as you can see the reaction form certain sections of the motoring lobby.
I'm sure, like me most cyclists have regularly experienced occasions when drivers have deliberately pulled close to the kerb and parked on advance stop boxes deliberately because they don't like us. The fact that the latter is also illegal and shouldn't happen hardly ever gets mentioned.
I do however re-iterate that all cyclists should obey the rules of the road and be considerate to other road users including pedestrians. Its counter productive not to.i-cycle

We probably need to get people back into the habit of calculating risk and taking the appropriate action when required. By this I mean DON'T bring in a compulsory helmet law because the non-thinking wearer will think they are less vulnerable and take more risks. (Risk compensation similar to seat belt wearing motorists in air bagged cars driving faster because they 'know' they are safer)
Is it dark, raining, icy? Am I going to race, ride downhill through a wood in the dark? If the answer is yes, wear a helmet.
Is it dry, sunny, and I'm just riding to the shops, work or school, no need to wear a helmet.
Sadly motorists perceive helmet wearers to be less vulnerable also, and so behave more aggressively towards them, and pass closer to them when overtaking, so reducing the effectiveness of the helmet wearing.
I look forward to the Ambulance Service recommending car drivers who do a lot of miles in all weathers, on minor roads wear helmets as their risk of head injury is far higher than a cyclist going for a ride round Pitchcroft.

We probably need to get people back into the habit of calculating risk and taking the appropriate action when required. By this I mean DON'T bring in a compulsory helmet law because the non-thinking wearer will think they are less vulnerable and take more risks. (Risk compensation similar to seat belt wearing motorists in air bagged cars driving faster because they 'know' they are safer)
Is it dark, raining, icy? Am I going to race, ride downhill through a wood in the dark? If the answer is yes, wear a helmet.
Is it dry, sunny, and I'm just riding to the shops, work or school, no need to wear a helmet.
Sadly motorists perceive helmet wearers to be less vulnerable also, and so behave more aggressively towards them, and pass closer to them when overtaking, so reducing the effectiveness of the helmet wearing.
I look forward to the Ambulance Service recommending car drivers who do a lot of miles in all weathers, on minor roads wear helmets as their risk of head injury is far higher than a cyclist going for a ride round Pitchcroft.The answer is 42

Just stand outside jvm castings on droitwich road at 6am or 10pm during winter months and count how many so called intelligent cyclists both arrive and leave work on bikes with no lights then you will see why motorists like me have so much hate towards cyclists, we all have the given right to use the highway but the laws only seem to apply to those who have a number plate attached so making it easy to trace us as for cyclists they can do as they like with no fear of breaking any law.
Until they are forced to abide by the highway code nothing will change

Just stand outside jvm castings on droitwich road at 6am or 10pm during winter months and count how many so called intelligent cyclists both arrive and leave work on bikes with no lights then you will see why motorists like me have so much hate towards cyclists, we all have the given right to use the highway but the laws only seem to apply to those who have a number plate attached so making it easy to trace us as for cyclists they can do as they like with no fear of breaking any law.
Until they are forced to abide by the highway code nothing will changesunnside

I like how the ambulance service are encouraging people to not get any exercise and clog up the city centre with motor vehicles. With the amount of traffic congestion and overweight people, this is the last thing we need. If they want to reduce deaths on the roads, they should tell the county council (and city council?) to stop creating very car-centric road infrastructure, which would benefit everyone for many reasons. Who would choose to design a city for motor vehicles rather than for people?

I also agree with most of the comments on here about not making helmets compulsory. When pedestrians get hit by cars, why doesn't anyone mention helmets?

I like how the ambulance service are encouraging people to not get any exercise and clog up the city centre with motor vehicles. With the amount of traffic congestion and overweight people, this is the last thing we need. If they want to reduce deaths on the roads, they should tell the county council (and city council?) to stop creating very car-centric road infrastructure, which would benefit everyone for many reasons. Who would choose to design a city for motor vehicles rather than for people?
I also agree with most of the comments on here about not making helmets compulsory. When pedestrians get hit by cars, why doesn't anyone mention helmets?04smallmj

04smallmj wrote:
I like how the ambulance service are encouraging people to not get any exercise and clog up the city centre with motor vehicles. With the amount of traffic congestion and overweight people, this is the last thing we need. If they want to reduce deaths on the roads, they should tell the county council (and city council?) to stop creating very car-centric road infrastructure, which would benefit everyone for many reasons. Who would choose to design a city for motor vehicles rather than for people?

I also agree with most of the comments on here about not making helmets compulsory. When pedestrians get hit by cars, why doesn't anyone mention helmets?

There are very good reasons for resisting compulsory helmet wearing, but I don't think anyone can rationally argue that the recommendations made by the Ambulance Service are sensible and certainly what I'd personally recommend other cyclists to do.

As other City's in the UK and certainly on the continent have already discovered there are certainly lots of benefits for all road users in providing a much more cycle friendly network and encouraging more to cycle.

In Worcester its disappointing that the County think that building a bridge that was mainly paid for by the Lottery and putting in a few badly designed cycle paths that don't connect or allow you to legally cycle across the City Centre is enough.

[quote][p][bold]04smallmj[/bold] wrote:
I like how the ambulance service are encouraging people to not get any exercise and clog up the city centre with motor vehicles. With the amount of traffic congestion and overweight people, this is the last thing we need. If they want to reduce deaths on the roads, they should tell the county council (and city council?) to stop creating very car-centric road infrastructure, which would benefit everyone for many reasons. Who would choose to design a city for motor vehicles rather than for people?
I also agree with most of the comments on here about not making helmets compulsory. When pedestrians get hit by cars, why doesn't anyone mention helmets?[/p][/quote]There are very good reasons for resisting compulsory helmet wearing, but I don't think anyone can rationally argue that the recommendations made by the Ambulance Service are sensible and certainly what I'd personally recommend other cyclists to do.
As other City's in the UK and certainly on the continent have already discovered there are certainly lots of benefits for all road users in providing a much more cycle friendly network and encouraging more to cycle.
In Worcester its disappointing that the County think that building a bridge that was mainly paid for by the Lottery and putting in a few badly designed cycle paths that don't connect or allow you to legally cycle across the City Centre is enough.i-cycle

As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!

As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!imustbeoldiwearacap

how about slowing down when approaching pedestrians, i was walking along the canal today and a cyclist went bombing past - i felt a wind draft - didn't even speak or look. i've also had more than one near miss at the crossing in lowesmoor, worcester as they never stop when anyone is waiting to cross. do bikes not come with breaks or are cyclists like drivers and leave their patience at home

how about slowing down when approaching pedestrians, i was walking along the canal today and a cyclist went bombing past - i felt a wind draft - didn't even speak or look. i've also had more than one near miss at the crossing in lowesmoor, worcester as they never stop when anyone is waiting to cross. do bikes not come with breaks or are cyclists like drivers and leave their patience at homedaffy

daffy wrote:
how about slowing down when approaching pedestrians, i was walking along the canal today and a cyclist went bombing past - i felt a wind draft - didn't even speak or look. i've also had more than one near miss at the crossing in lowesmoor, worcester as they never stop when anyone is waiting to cross. do bikes not come with breaks or are cyclists like drivers and leave their patience at home

Part of the problem is that, unlike other countries we have such an anti-cycling stance that its only the 'serious' cyclists that bother to get on a bike.

Lots are responsible, but equally there are those that have been sensitised to all the negativity from motorists and pedestrians that they feel they have the god given right to ignore the highway code and give due consideration for other road users.

I don't want to exaggerate, but think Gaza and Israel in terms of helping to explain what's happening.

Congestion is a big problem in Worcester. Ironically encouraging more to cycle would benefit everyday, but motorists locally are so anti-cyclist and all too many cyclist are anti-motorist. This plays out in local politics and means the City and County Council lack the conviction to encourage more to cycle by providing better and segregated cycle routes (not at all expensive compared to other highway investment). IF they did more would cycle, public health would improve for those who cycle more (less demands on the NHS and social services) and air pollution ( a growing local concern) would decrease. More importantly congestion would decrease and there would be less demand on parking.

Counter-intuitativel
y for many (?) encouraging more to cycle would actually have so many benefits for all. Bristol and some of the other Cities and certainly lots in Europe, but also around the world have seen the light and to the point now where in Bristol the majority of under 40's no longer commute to work by car.

The biggest problems for Worcester in moving in the same direction are:

Cyclists that act irresponsibly and don't respect the law

Motorists that assume all cyclists don't respect the law and should be either banned or have to comply with more regulations (actually counterproductive)

The majority of politicians at City and County that are either themselves anti-cyclist or so wedded to driving everywhere they don't understand that there are alternatives for themselves as more particularly their constituents.

Lets put it this way, you're probably a motorist (actually like the majority of cyclists) why, if cyclists are provided with better and safer routes around the City would you object to an increase in cycling that would reduce traffic on congested roads and free up more car parking spaces?

The other major problem that puts lots off cycling is the perceived rather than the real risk. In reality (2012 DfT stats) you're just as likely to be killed as a pedestrian as a cyclist (per mile travelled).

Perhaps, its time for a major local campaign to make those cyclists (including the CPSOs that are actually encouraged to ride on pavements) to respect the law and be more considerate to other road users, but also encourage motorists to better understand why cyclists do need to be given more room and consideration. More importantly the CIty and County Councils need to consider how best they can provide better, safer off-road routes around the City.

If only everyone could get beyond the stereotypical us vs them attitudes I'm sure everyone would benefit from encouraging more local residents to reduce their car use for journeys around the City.

Important in this is encouraging all types of user to share the highway network legally and with greater consideration for all road users and particularly the more vulnerable pedestrian and cyclist.

[quote][p][bold]daffy[/bold] wrote:
how about slowing down when approaching pedestrians, i was walking along the canal today and a cyclist went bombing past - i felt a wind draft - didn't even speak or look. i've also had more than one near miss at the crossing in lowesmoor, worcester as they never stop when anyone is waiting to cross. do bikes not come with breaks or are cyclists like drivers and leave their patience at home[/p][/quote]Part of the problem is that, unlike other countries we have such an anti-cycling stance that its only the 'serious' cyclists that bother to get on a bike.
Lots are responsible, but equally there are those that have been sensitised to all the negativity from motorists and pedestrians that they feel they have the god given right to ignore the highway code and give due consideration for other road users.
I don't want to exaggerate, but think Gaza and Israel in terms of helping to explain what's happening.
Congestion is a big problem in Worcester. Ironically encouraging more to cycle would benefit everyday, but motorists locally are so anti-cyclist and all too many cyclist are anti-motorist. This plays out in local politics and means the City and County Council lack the conviction to encourage more to cycle by providing better and segregated cycle routes (not at all expensive compared to other highway investment). IF they did more would cycle, public health would improve for those who cycle more (less demands on the NHS and social services) and air pollution ( a growing local concern) would decrease. More importantly congestion would decrease and there would be less demand on parking.
Counter-intuitativel
y for many (?) encouraging more to cycle would actually have so many benefits for all. Bristol and some of the other Cities and certainly lots in Europe, but also around the world have seen the light and to the point now where in Bristol the majority of under 40's no longer commute to work by car.
The biggest problems for Worcester in moving in the same direction are:
Cyclists that act irresponsibly and don't respect the law
Motorists that assume all cyclists don't respect the law and should be either banned or have to comply with more regulations (actually counterproductive)
The majority of politicians at City and County that are either themselves anti-cyclist or so wedded to driving everywhere they don't understand that there are alternatives for themselves as more particularly their constituents.
Lets put it this way, you're probably a motorist (actually like the majority of cyclists) why, if cyclists are provided with better and safer routes around the City would you object to an increase in cycling that would reduce traffic on congested roads and free up more car parking spaces?
The other major problem that puts lots off cycling is the perceived rather than the real risk. In reality (2012 DfT stats) you're just as likely to be killed as a pedestrian as a cyclist (per mile travelled).
Perhaps, its time for a major local campaign to make those cyclists (including the CPSOs that are actually encouraged to ride on pavements) to respect the law and be more considerate to other road users, but also encourage motorists to better understand why cyclists do need to be given more room and consideration. More importantly the CIty and County Councils need to consider how best they can provide better, safer off-road routes around the City.
If only everyone could get beyond the stereotypical us vs them attitudes I'm sure everyone would benefit from encouraging more local residents to reduce their car use for journeys around the City.
Important in this is encouraging all types of user to share the highway network legally and with greater consideration for all road users and particularly the more vulnerable pedestrian and cyclist.3thinker

daffy wrote:
how about slowing down when approaching pedestrians, i was walking along the canal today and a cyclist went bombing past - i felt a wind draft - didn't even speak or look. i've also had more than one near miss at the crossing in lowesmoor, worcester as they never stop when anyone is waiting to cross. do bikes not come with breaks or are cyclists like drivers and leave their patience at home

Part of the problem is that, unlike other countries we have such an anti-cycling stance that its only the 'serious' cyclists that bother to get on a bike.

Lots are responsible, but equally there are those that have been sensitised to all the negativity from motorists and pedestrians that they feel they have the god given right to ignore the highway code and give due consideration for other road users.

I don't want to exaggerate, but think Gaza and Israel in terms of helping to explain what's happening.

Congestion is a big problem in Worcester. Ironically encouraging more to cycle would benefit everyday, but motorists locally are so anti-cyclist and all too many cyclist are anti-motorist. This plays out in local politics and means the City and County Council lack the conviction to encourage more to cycle by providing better and segregated cycle routes (not at all expensive compared to other highway investment). IF they did more would cycle, public health would improve for those who cycle more (less demands on the NHS and social services) and air pollution ( a growing local concern) would decrease. More importantly congestion would decrease and there would be less demand on parking.

Counter-intuitativel

y for many (?) encouraging more to cycle would actually have so many benefits for all. Bristol and some of the other Cities and certainly lots in Europe, but also around the world have seen the light and to the point now where in Bristol the majority of under 40's no longer commute to work by car.

The biggest problems for Worcester in moving in the same direction are:

Cyclists that act irresponsibly and don't respect the law

Motorists that assume all cyclists don't respect the law and should be either banned or have to comply with more regulations (actually counterproductive)

The majority of politicians at City and County that are either themselves anti-cyclist or so wedded to driving everywhere they don't understand that there are alternatives for themselves as more particularly their constituents.

Lets put it this way, you're probably a motorist (actually like the majority of cyclists) why, if cyclists are provided with better and safer routes around the City would you object to an increase in cycling that would reduce traffic on congested roads and free up more car parking spaces?

The other major problem that puts lots off cycling is the perceived rather than the real risk. In reality (2012 DfT stats) you're just as likely to be killed as a pedestrian as a cyclist (per mile travelled).

Perhaps, its time for a major local campaign to make those cyclists (including the CPSOs that are actually encouraged to ride on pavements) to respect the law and be more considerate to other road users, but also encourage motorists to better understand why cyclists do need to be given more room and consideration. More importantly the CIty and County Councils need to consider how best they can provide better, safer off-road routes around the City.

If only everyone could get beyond the stereotypical us vs them attitudes I'm sure everyone would benefit from encouraging more local residents to reduce their car use for journeys around the City.

Important in this is encouraging all types of user to share the highway network legally and with greater consideration for all road users and particularly the more vulnerable pedestrian and cyclist.

I think £thinker makes a lot of very valid points.

Certainly the local cycling community need to be much more vigilant in ensuring that cyclists locally comply with the law and ensure they are more considerate to motorists and pedestrians.

Hopefully motorists and pedestrians will do likewise.

I'm not sure about the 'military comparison to Gaza and Israel, but I do think all road users need to have a better understanding of each others needs and how we can share our congested roads better.

I'm sure if we did Worcester would be a better, healthier and safer place to live work and play.

What do you think DarrenM?

[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]daffy[/bold] wrote:
how about slowing down when approaching pedestrians, i was walking along the canal today and a cyclist went bombing past - i felt a wind draft - didn't even speak or look. i've also had more than one near miss at the crossing in lowesmoor, worcester as they never stop when anyone is waiting to cross. do bikes not come with breaks or are cyclists like drivers and leave their patience at home[/p][/quote]Part of the problem is that, unlike other countries we have such an anti-cycling stance that its only the 'serious' cyclists that bother to get on a bike.
Lots are responsible, but equally there are those that have been sensitised to all the negativity from motorists and pedestrians that they feel they have the god given right to ignore the highway code and give due consideration for other road users.
I don't want to exaggerate, but think Gaza and Israel in terms of helping to explain what's happening.
Congestion is a big problem in Worcester. Ironically encouraging more to cycle would benefit everyday, but motorists locally are so anti-cyclist and all too many cyclist are anti-motorist. This plays out in local politics and means the City and County Council lack the conviction to encourage more to cycle by providing better and segregated cycle routes (not at all expensive compared to other highway investment). IF they did more would cycle, public health would improve for those who cycle more (less demands on the NHS and social services) and air pollution ( a growing local concern) would decrease. More importantly congestion would decrease and there would be less demand on parking.
Counter-intuitativel
y for many (?) encouraging more to cycle would actually have so many benefits for all. Bristol and some of the other Cities and certainly lots in Europe, but also around the world have seen the light and to the point now where in Bristol the majority of under 40's no longer commute to work by car.
The biggest problems for Worcester in moving in the same direction are:
Cyclists that act irresponsibly and don't respect the law
Motorists that assume all cyclists don't respect the law and should be either banned or have to comply with more regulations (actually counterproductive)
The majority of politicians at City and County that are either themselves anti-cyclist or so wedded to driving everywhere they don't understand that there are alternatives for themselves as more particularly their constituents.
Lets put it this way, you're probably a motorist (actually like the majority of cyclists) why, if cyclists are provided with better and safer routes around the City would you object to an increase in cycling that would reduce traffic on congested roads and free up more car parking spaces?
The other major problem that puts lots off cycling is the perceived rather than the real risk. In reality (2012 DfT stats) you're just as likely to be killed as a pedestrian as a cyclist (per mile travelled).
Perhaps, its time for a major local campaign to make those cyclists (including the CPSOs that are actually encouraged to ride on pavements) to respect the law and be more considerate to other road users, but also encourage motorists to better understand why cyclists do need to be given more room and consideration. More importantly the CIty and County Councils need to consider how best they can provide better, safer off-road routes around the City.
If only everyone could get beyond the stereotypical us vs them attitudes I'm sure everyone would benefit from encouraging more local residents to reduce their car use for journeys around the City.
Important in this is encouraging all types of user to share the highway network legally and with greater consideration for all road users and particularly the more vulnerable pedestrian and cyclist.[/p][/quote]I think £thinker makes a lot of very valid points.
Certainly the local cycling community need to be much more vigilant in ensuring that cyclists locally comply with the law and ensure they are more considerate to motorists and pedestrians.
Hopefully motorists and pedestrians will do likewise.
I'm not sure about the 'military comparison to Gaza and Israel, but I do think all road users need to have a better understanding of each others needs and how we can share our congested roads better.
I'm sure if we did Worcester would be a better, healthier and safer place to live work and play.
What do you think DarrenM?i-cycle

In recent posts there is an emerging fallacy which in danger of becoming accepted fact, namely that cyclists are institutionalized law breakers. Contrary to this stereotype, all surveys carried out by government agencies have shown the vast majority of cyclists do obey the highway code (including red lights), and indeed far more so than car drivers. Equally it is wrong to assert that cyclists are car haters because almost all are motorists as well.

Sadly this thread, like any other on cycling, gets hijacked by the malicious outpourings of a minority of the city's pond life. They hate cyclists because they are different. They hate cyclists because they deny their conviction that the road is their private race track. They hate cyclists because it destroys their defence that their super size gut is an inevitability of age and genes. They hate cyclists through spite because statistically they are likely to be younger, fitter, better educated and richer than them, and will live longer. They hate cyclists because they can, and perhaps its the only thing that brings significance to their sad inconsequential little lives.

I'm sure the vast majority of motorists and cyclists in this city are responsible and fully capable of living together. A bit of education on both sides helps. For goodness sake, don't fall for the bone-headed stereotypes peddled by a few to create attitudes of resentment & conflict. You don't have to look as far as Gaza to see what that inevitably leads to.

In recent posts there is an emerging fallacy which in danger of becoming accepted fact, namely that cyclists are institutionalized law breakers. Contrary to this stereotype, all surveys carried out by government agencies have shown the vast majority of cyclists do obey the highway code (including red lights), and indeed far more so than car drivers. Equally it is wrong to assert that cyclists are car haters because almost all are motorists as well.
Sadly this thread, like any other on cycling, gets hijacked by the malicious outpourings of a minority of the city's pond life. They hate cyclists because they are different. They hate cyclists because they deny their conviction that the road is their private race track. They hate cyclists because it destroys their defence that their super size gut is an inevitability of age and genes. They hate cyclists through spite because statistically they are likely to be younger, fitter, better educated and richer than them, and will live longer. They hate cyclists because they can, and perhaps its the only thing that brings significance to their sad inconsequential little lives.
I'm sure the vast majority of motorists and cyclists in this city are responsible and fully capable of living together. A bit of education on both sides helps. For goodness sake, don't fall for the bone-headed stereotypes peddled by a few to create attitudes of resentment & conflict. You don't have to look as far as Gaza to see what that inevitably leads to.St Jon

Genepaulkev wrote:
Helmets should be made compulsory, if not for all certainly for children, those who value their hairstyle over their lives need saving from themselves IMHO!

You really need to study the real evidence as to the uselessness of these. Rather that believe the marketing hype surrounding an item that costs less than 60 pence to produce but sells at over £100.

Maybe if authorities were really concerned with preventing head injuries all occupants of motor vehicles should be wearing helmets. Far more are injured this way than are cyclists.

[quote][p][bold]Genepaulkev[/bold] wrote:
Helmets should be made compulsory, if not for all certainly for children, those who value their hairstyle over their lives need saving from themselves IMHO![/p][/quote]You really need to study the real evidence as to the uselessness of these. Rather that believe the marketing hype surrounding an item that costs less than 60 pence to produce but sells at over £100.
Maybe if authorities were really concerned with preventing head injuries all occupants of motor vehicles should be wearing helmets. Far more are injured this way than are cyclists.bikepacker

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!

SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .

[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches![/p][/quote]SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .liketoknow

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!

SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .

There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)

[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches![/p][/quote]SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .[/p][/quote]There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)imustbeoldiwearacap

I agree, the amount of car i see jumping lights while i cycle to work is terrible. If you don't think cars do this go and stand at the lights on the junction at the bottom of London rd and Bath road.

[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote:
Not jumping red lights would be a good start.[/p][/quote]I agree, the amount of car i see jumping lights while i cycle to work is terrible. If you don't think cars do this go and stand at the lights on the junction at the bottom of London rd and Bath road.ispywithmylitleeye

Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.

So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.

Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?

Could you give some links or sources for this? Would be interesting to see for my own eyes.

I agree, the amount of car i see jumping lights while i cycle to work is terrible. If you don't think cars do this go and stand at the lights on the junction at the bottom of London rd and Bath road.

[quote][p][bold]JackTheSecond[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tobster[/bold] wrote:
“I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet"
Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.
So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.
Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?[/p][/quote]Could you give some links or sources for this? Would be interesting to see for my own eyes.[/p][/quote]I agree, the amount of car i see jumping lights while i cycle to work is terrible. If you don't think cars do this go and stand at the lights on the junction at the bottom of London rd and Bath road.ispywithmylitleeye

Genepaulkev wrote:
Helmets should be made compulsory, if not for all certainly for children, those who value their hairstyle over their lives need saving from themselves IMHO!

We would not need helmets if cars didn't keep crashing in to us!

[quote][p][bold]Genepaulkev[/bold] wrote:
Helmets should be made compulsory, if not for all certainly for children, those who value their hairstyle over their lives need saving from themselves IMHO![/p][/quote]We would not need helmets if cars didn't keep crashing in to us!ispywithmylitleeye

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!

SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .

There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)

several blindspots at junctions when the trailer obscures the drivers view. It's not an easy job driving large vehicles on these crowded roads . I'm just saying a little bit of understanding of the situation is required. they used to call it roadcraft . I dare say it's been replaced by Claimsdirect these days .

[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches![/p][/quote]SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .[/p][/quote]There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)[/p][/quote]several blindspots at junctions when the trailer obscures the drivers view. It's not an easy job driving large vehicles on these crowded roads . I'm just saying a little bit of understanding of the situation is required. they used to call it roadcraft . I dare say it's been replaced by Claimsdirect these days .liketoknow

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!

SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .

[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches![/p][/quote]SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .[/p][/quote]who knocked my thumbsup off? I'm offering lifesaving advice here. lets have some respect.liketoknow

My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.

My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.The Villan

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!

SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .

There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)

several blindspots at junctions when the trailer obscures the drivers view. It's not an easy job driving large vehicles on these crowded roads . I'm just saying a little bit of understanding of the situation is required. they used to call it roadcraft . I dare say it's been replaced by Claimsdirect these days .

I was talking about when me (the cyclist) is on the main road and the car/lorry is either turning left or right at a junction....now unless your rig has the trailer at the front..........?

[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches![/p][/quote]SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .[/p][/quote]There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)[/p][/quote]several blindspots at junctions when the trailer obscures the drivers view. It's not an easy job driving large vehicles on these crowded roads . I'm just saying a little bit of understanding of the situation is required. they used to call it roadcraft . I dare say it's been replaced by Claimsdirect these days .[/p][/quote]I was talking about when me (the cyclist) is on the main road and the car/lorry is either turning left or right at a junction....now unless your rig has the trailer at the front..........?imustbeoldiwearacap

The Villan wrote:
My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.

I know that when we're out cycling as a group we always try to pull over or slow down when its safe for a car to pass. Its only common courtesy.

What's often not appreciated by motorists is that its dangerous for cyclist to ride too close to the edge of the road as this is where the potholes, loose gravel and other 'objets' end up. The comment from the ambulance service about correctly positioning ourselves reflects DfT guidance and that given in cycle training i.e. if there's not enough room for a car to safely pass (at 1.5m) and if positioning ourselves for a junction or turn then we should take a more central position on the road (about where the gear stick would be if we were driving a car.

Cycling two a breast is not only legal but if correctly done and a group breaks itself down into smaller groups of say 6 riders its actually quicker, easier and safer for motorists to pass than if we were all strung out in one single line.

As with many things in terms of sharing our congested roads better and more safely its a case of all road users being more considerate to the needs of others.

[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.[/p][/quote]I know that when we're out cycling as a group we always try to pull over or slow down when its safe for a car to pass. Its only common courtesy.
What's often not appreciated by motorists is that its dangerous for cyclist to ride too close to the edge of the road as this is where the potholes, loose gravel and other 'objets' end up. The comment from the ambulance service about correctly positioning ourselves reflects DfT guidance and that given in cycle training i.e. if there's not enough room for a car to safely pass (at 1.5m) and if positioning ourselves for a junction or turn then we should take a more central position on the road (about where the gear stick would be if we were driving a car.
Cycling two a breast is not only legal but if correctly done and a group breaks itself down into smaller groups of say 6 riders its actually quicker, easier and safer for motorists to pass than if we were all strung out in one single line.
As with many things in terms of sharing our congested roads better and more safely its a case of all road users being more considerate to the needs of others.i-cycle

Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.

So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.

Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?

Get a crash helmet then!

They are known to save lives

To the MORON downvoters, I have twice had my life saved by one.

Going over the top of a car at 30 is not fun, I still have joint problems 30 years on, but I am hear but I would not be if Iw as not wearing a crash helmet.

So again if you downvoted me over this comment you must have banged your head pretty hard with no protection!

[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tobster[/bold] wrote:
“I can’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to wear a cycle helmet"
Allow me to give you three:
There is no reliable statistical data to confirm that they save lives.
They are only by regulation constructed to withstand a direct impact of 12mph.
There is some data to suggest that in cyclist-vehicle collisions, which have by far the highest fatality rate, they can be detrimental as they can increase torque forces on the head and neck.
So I shall continue to make my informed decision not to wear one for my 25 mile round commute.
Why not say something about the far more significant problem of stupid brakeless, lightless stuntbikes ridden around Worcester by 14 year old ninjas?[/p][/quote]Get a crash helmet then!
They are known to save lives[/p][/quote]To the MORON downvoters, I have twice had my life saved by one.
Going over the top of a car at 30 is not fun, I still have joint problems 30 years on, but I am hear but I would not be if Iw as not wearing a crash helmet.
So again if you downvoted me over this comment you must have banged your head pretty hard with no protection!MJI

The answer is 42 wrote:
We probably need to get people back into the habit of calculating risk and taking the appropriate action when required. By this I mean DON'T bring in a compulsory helmet law because the non-thinking wearer will think they are less vulnerable and take more risks. (Risk compensation similar to seat belt wearing motorists in air bagged cars driving faster because they 'know' they are safer)
Is it dark, raining, icy? Am I going to race, ride downhill through a wood in the dark? If the answer is yes, wear a helmet.
Is it dry, sunny, and I'm just riding to the shops, work or school, no need to wear a helmet.
Sadly motorists perceive helmet wearers to be less vulnerable also, and so behave more aggressively towards them, and pass closer to them when overtaking, so reducing the effectiveness of the helmet wearing.
I look forward to the Ambulance Service recommending car drivers who do a lot of miles in all weathers, on minor roads wear helmets as their risk of head injury is far higher than a cyclist going for a ride round Pitchcroft.

Actually more safety features do not make you drive faster like this, having an accident still hurts, last one I had I took four to five months to fully physically recover, but I still panic at cars over the white line. Or having cars of the same type as caused the accident driving close to me.

If safety was so important where are the 4 point harnesses and roll cages?

[quote][p][bold]The answer is 42[/bold] wrote:
We probably need to get people back into the habit of calculating risk and taking the appropriate action when required. By this I mean DON'T bring in a compulsory helmet law because the non-thinking wearer will think they are less vulnerable and take more risks. (Risk compensation similar to seat belt wearing motorists in air bagged cars driving faster because they 'know' they are safer)
Is it dark, raining, icy? Am I going to race, ride downhill through a wood in the dark? If the answer is yes, wear a helmet.
Is it dry, sunny, and I'm just riding to the shops, work or school, no need to wear a helmet.
Sadly motorists perceive helmet wearers to be less vulnerable also, and so behave more aggressively towards them, and pass closer to them when overtaking, so reducing the effectiveness of the helmet wearing.
I look forward to the Ambulance Service recommending car drivers who do a lot of miles in all weathers, on minor roads wear helmets as their risk of head injury is far higher than a cyclist going for a ride round Pitchcroft.[/p][/quote]Actually more safety features do not make you drive faster like this, having an accident still hurts, last one I had I took four to five months to fully physically recover, but I still panic at cars over the white line. Or having cars of the same type as caused the accident driving close to me.
If safety was so important where are the 4 point harnesses and roll cages?MJI

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches!

SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .

There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)

Gloucester Police could not even see a large motorcycle riding middle of lane legally so what hope a cyclist.

BTW I emergency braked and just missed the moron.

[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote:
As always plenty of advice for cyclists - but nothing about educating the car and lorry drivers! I wear a helmet, hi-viz and constant flashing front and rear lights - yet the number of times I hear SMIDSY! (Sorry, Mate I didn't see you!) Oh and while I'm in a grumpy mood, can we start a campaign to change the pedestrian crossing on Croft Road to a Toucan - as a motorist I get fed-up with pedestrians and cyclists just dreaming their way across! No sooner has one group crossed, then another approaches![/p][/quote]SMIDSY ! tells you something doesn't it . If it's a lorry driver he is very likely telling you the truth. large vehicles inherently do have blind spots. When I'm driving I always show long vehicles total respect . I stay well back . self preservation is instinctive . Even moreso on a bike I would think .[/p][/quote]There is no blind spot when a vehicle (does not matter if car or lorry) at a junction just pulls out in front of you!!!!! They just do not look properly (or are just prepared to take a risk (at the cyclist (or bikers) expense)[/p][/quote]Gloucester Police could not even see a large motorcycle riding middle of lane legally so what hope a cyclist.
BTW I emergency braked and just missed the moron.MJI

The Villan wrote:
My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.

I know that when we're out cycling as a group we always try to pull over or slow down when its safe for a car to pass. Its only common courtesy.

What's often not appreciated by motorists is that its dangerous for cyclist to ride too close to the edge of the road as this is where the potholes, loose gravel and other 'objets' end up. The comment from the ambulance service about correctly positioning ourselves reflects DfT guidance and that given in cycle training i.e. if there's not enough room for a car to safely pass (at 1.5m) and if positioning ourselves for a junction or turn then we should take a more central position on the road (about where the gear stick would be if we were driving a car.

Cycling two a breast is not only legal but if correctly done and a group breaks itself down into smaller groups of say 6 riders its actually quicker, easier and safer for motorists to pass than if we were all strung out in one single line.

As with many things in terms of sharing our congested roads better and more safely its a case of all road users being more considerate to the needs of others.

And to be honest good cyclists are forgotten about and the idiots are remembered. So the many I see on my commute are just background filling, all fine, no issues, but the idiot who went across a red light at a pedestrian crossing, nearly running me over is remembered.

The IOAB (idiot on a bike) I saw by chance once with a scared expression at night fast unlit A road no lights, nearly hit by the car in front of me as he was overtaking - remembered.

[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.[/p][/quote]I know that when we're out cycling as a group we always try to pull over or slow down when its safe for a car to pass. Its only common courtesy.
What's often not appreciated by motorists is that its dangerous for cyclist to ride too close to the edge of the road as this is where the potholes, loose gravel and other 'objets' end up. The comment from the ambulance service about correctly positioning ourselves reflects DfT guidance and that given in cycle training i.e. if there's not enough room for a car to safely pass (at 1.5m) and if positioning ourselves for a junction or turn then we should take a more central position on the road (about where the gear stick would be if we were driving a car.
Cycling two a breast is not only legal but if correctly done and a group breaks itself down into smaller groups of say 6 riders its actually quicker, easier and safer for motorists to pass than if we were all strung out in one single line.
As with many things in terms of sharing our congested roads better and more safely its a case of all road users being more considerate to the needs of others.[/p][/quote]And to be honest good cyclists are forgotten about and the idiots are remembered. So the many I see on my commute are just background filling, all fine, no issues, but the idiot who went across a red light at a pedestrian crossing, nearly running me over is remembered.
The IOAB (idiot on a bike) I saw by chance once with a scared expression at night fast unlit A road no lights, nearly hit by the car in front of me as he was overtaking - remembered.MJI

The Villan wrote:
My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.

I know that when we're out cycling as a group we always try to pull over or slow down when its safe for a car to pass. Its only common courtesy.

What's often not appreciated by motorists is that its dangerous for cyclist to ride too close to the edge of the road as this is where the potholes, loose gravel and other 'objets' end up. The comment from the ambulance service about correctly positioning ourselves reflects DfT guidance and that given in cycle training i.e. if there's not enough room for a car to safely pass (at 1.5m) and if positioning ourselves for a junction or turn then we should take a more central position on the road (about where the gear stick would be if we were driving a car.

Cycling two a breast is not only legal but if correctly done and a group breaks itself down into smaller groups of say 6 riders its actually quicker, easier and safer for motorists to pass than if we were all strung out in one single line.

As with many things in terms of sharing our congested roads better and more safely its a case of all road users being more considerate to the needs of others.

And to be honest good cyclists are forgotten about and the idiots are remembered. So the many I see on my commute are just background filling, all fine, no issues, but the idiot who went across a red light at a pedestrian crossing, nearly running me over is remembered.

The IOAB (idiot on a bike) I saw by chance once with a scared expression at night fast unlit A road no lights, nearly hit by the car in front of me as he was overtaking - remembered.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Motorists seem more sensitised to spotting an errant cyclist.

However, I drive and cycle and certainly see lots more cars breaking the highway code but because its so common and unless there's an accident or near miss its not remembered.

Yet I regularly get heckled and even deliberately cut up or blocked by cars even when doing nothing at all wrong.

A classic is the Lowesmoor bus and cycle lane. Not legal for cars to use in the rush hour peak, but rammed full of them. Yet I regularly get verbal when cycling through it and deliberately stopped from using the advanced stop box at the end.

Its difficult to understand why so many drivers are so disrespectful and inconsiderate to cyclists. Perhaps if more cycled as in other countries attitudes would change.

[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
My only gripe with cyclists is when they ride two or three abreast (the ones in cycling club garb) and don't move for overtaking vehicles to single file. It's actions like this that cause drivers to get fed up with cyclists. We all use the road so a little bit if common sense and dual appreciation wouldn't go amiss.[/p][/quote]I know that when we're out cycling as a group we always try to pull over or slow down when its safe for a car to pass. Its only common courtesy.
What's often not appreciated by motorists is that its dangerous for cyclist to ride too close to the edge of the road as this is where the potholes, loose gravel and other 'objets' end up. The comment from the ambulance service about correctly positioning ourselves reflects DfT guidance and that given in cycle training i.e. if there's not enough room for a car to safely pass (at 1.5m) and if positioning ourselves for a junction or turn then we should take a more central position on the road (about where the gear stick would be if we were driving a car.
Cycling two a breast is not only legal but if correctly done and a group breaks itself down into smaller groups of say 6 riders its actually quicker, easier and safer for motorists to pass than if we were all strung out in one single line.
As with many things in terms of sharing our congested roads better and more safely its a case of all road users being more considerate to the needs of others.[/p][/quote]And to be honest good cyclists are forgotten about and the idiots are remembered. So the many I see on my commute are just background filling, all fine, no issues, but the idiot who went across a red light at a pedestrian crossing, nearly running me over is remembered.
The IOAB (idiot on a bike) I saw by chance once with a scared expression at night fast unlit A road no lights, nearly hit by the car in front of me as he was overtaking - remembered.[/p][/quote]I think you've hit the nail on the head. Motorists seem more sensitised to spotting an errant cyclist.
However, I drive and cycle and certainly see lots more cars breaking the highway code but because its so common and unless there's an accident or near miss its not remembered.
Yet I regularly get heckled and even deliberately cut up or blocked by cars even when doing nothing at all wrong.
A classic is the Lowesmoor bus and cycle lane. Not legal for cars to use in the rush hour peak, but rammed full of them. Yet I regularly get verbal when cycling through it and deliberately stopped from using the advanced stop box at the end.
Its difficult to understand why so many drivers are so disrespectful and inconsiderate to cyclists. Perhaps if more cycled as in other countries attitudes would change.3thinker

I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .

I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.

I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .
I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.The Villan

The Villan wrote:
I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .

I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.

You've obviously not bothered to read the sound and rational reasons why making helmets compulsory is not a logical way forward.

I recommend and wear a helmet, use Hi-Vis, lights and along with all cyclists that are members of CTC and British Cycling groups have third party, but the case for making helmets compulsory is not proven and counterproductive. If it was rational then it should also apply to pedestrians and front seat passengers in vehicles as a helmet's effectiveness is just as, if not more effective.

I suppose you think we should all cyclists should road tax too?

[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .
I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.[/p][/quote]You've obviously not bothered to read the sound and rational reasons why making helmets compulsory is not a logical way forward.
I recommend and wear a helmet, use Hi-Vis, lights and along with all cyclists that are members of CTC and British Cycling groups have third party, but the case for making helmets compulsory is not proven and counterproductive. If it was rational then it should also apply to pedestrians and front seat passengers in vehicles as a helmet's effectiveness is just as, if not more effective.
I suppose you think we should all cyclists should road tax too?i-cycle

The Villan wrote:
I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .

I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.

You've obviously not bothered to read the sound and rational reasons why making helmets compulsory is not a logical way forward.

I recommend and wear a helmet, use Hi-Vis, lights and along with all cyclists that are members of CTC and British Cycling groups have third party, but the case for making helmets compulsory is not proven and counterproductive. If it was rational then it should also apply to pedestrians and front seat passengers in vehicles as a helmet's effectiveness is just as, if not more effective.

I suppose you think we should all cyclists should road tax too?

Absolutely. It's a vehicle, albeit two wheels and is used on a public highway.

[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .
I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.[/p][/quote]You've obviously not bothered to read the sound and rational reasons why making helmets compulsory is not a logical way forward.
I recommend and wear a helmet, use Hi-Vis, lights and along with all cyclists that are members of CTC and British Cycling groups have third party, but the case for making helmets compulsory is not proven and counterproductive. If it was rational then it should also apply to pedestrians and front seat passengers in vehicles as a helmet's effectiveness is just as, if not more effective.
I suppose you think we should all cyclists should road tax too?[/p][/quote]Absolutely. It's a vehicle, albeit two wheels and is used on a public highway.The Villan

The Villan wrote:
I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .

I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.

You've obviously not bothered to read the sound and rational reasons why making helmets compulsory is not a logical way forward.

I recommend and wear a helmet, use Hi-Vis, lights and along with all cyclists that are members of CTC and British Cycling groups have third party, but the case for making helmets compulsory is not proven and counterproductive. If it was rational then it should also apply to pedestrians and front seat passengers in vehicles as a helmet's effectiveness is just as, if not more effective.

I suppose you think we should all cyclists should road tax too?

Absolutely. It's a vehicle, albeit two wheels and is used on a public highway.

As road tax doesn't exist (Churchill got rid of it in the 1930's) I assume you mean Vehicle Excise Duty?

[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
I also think that all cyclists should wear helmets and clothing that is highly visible or reflective, as suggested in the Highway Code .
I also believe, in today's society of mitigation and compensation, that all cyclists should be insured when cycling on public highways.[/p][/quote]You've obviously not bothered to read the sound and rational reasons why making helmets compulsory is not a logical way forward.
I recommend and wear a helmet, use Hi-Vis, lights and along with all cyclists that are members of CTC and British Cycling groups have third party, but the case for making helmets compulsory is not proven and counterproductive. If it was rational then it should also apply to pedestrians and front seat passengers in vehicles as a helmet's effectiveness is just as, if not more effective.
I suppose you think we should all cyclists should road tax too?[/p][/quote]Absolutely. It's a vehicle, albeit two wheels and is used on a public highway.[/p][/quote]As road tax doesn't exist (Churchill got rid of it in the 1930's) I assume you mean Vehicle Excise Duty?i-cycle

I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.

It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?

I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.
It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?The Villan

The Villan wrote:
I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.

It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?

Nope.

Just trying to point out that lots in the 'hate cyclists' lobby don't know what they're talking about.

Roads, Bridleways, footways, footpaths are all paid for out of general taxation. Which all cyclists pay anyway.

What some people wrongly call "Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 80 years.

What they are usually thinning about is VED which now a tax on pollution. Low emission vehicles don't pay any VED and a bicycle certainly wouldn't pay any.

65% of cyclists are also car owners and drivers so pay the same tax as you do.

The more we cycle, the lower the congestion, pollution, defect on the balance of payments ( interns of imputed fuel) and demands on the NHS and the taxpayer we make.

Given the above there are lots of reasons why more should be encouraged to cycle rather than penalised for cycling when in reality its actually beneficial for the individual and society, including motorists to encourage more to cycle.

A point that the AA has recognised and partly because those who are taught to cycle at an age when they can't legally drive have a better road sense and make better drivers in the longer term.

Now going back to your original point. The case for making helmets compulsory has been looked at in detail by the Government. Helmets offer some protection at low impact but this also applies for pedestrians and car passengers. There are two countries in the world that have made it compulsory and cycling levels have dropped significantly with no change at all in the level of head or other injuries.

There is actually a more rational case for incentivising more to cycle and certainly to make better provision for safer cycling routes.

[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.
It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?[/p][/quote]Nope.
Just trying to point out that lots in the 'hate cyclists' lobby don't know what they're talking about.
Roads, Bridleways, footways, footpaths are all paid for out of general taxation. Which all cyclists pay anyway.
What some people wrongly call "Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 80 years.
What they are usually thinning about is VED which now a tax on pollution. Low emission vehicles don't pay any VED and a bicycle certainly wouldn't pay any.
65% of cyclists are also car owners and drivers so pay the same tax as you do.
The more we cycle, the lower the congestion, pollution, defect on the balance of payments ( interns of imputed fuel) and demands on the NHS and the taxpayer we make.
Given the above there are lots of reasons why more should be encouraged to cycle rather than penalised for cycling when in reality its actually beneficial for the individual and society, including motorists to encourage more to cycle.
A point that the AA has recognised and partly because those who are taught to cycle at an age when they can't legally drive have a better road sense and make better drivers in the longer term.
Now going back to your original point. The case for making helmets compulsory has been looked at in detail by the Government. Helmets offer some protection at low impact but this also applies for pedestrians and car passengers. There are two countries in the world that have made it compulsory and cycling levels have dropped significantly with no change at all in the level of head or other injuries.
There is actually a more rational case for incentivising more to cycle and certainly to make better provision for safer cycling routes.3thinker

The Villan wrote:
I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.

It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?

We get so many incendiary and unfounded comments is it little wonder that we get wound up.

Yes some cyclists don't stick to the Highway Code. The same applies to all road users. et we get singled out and stigmatised.

The reality is that most cyclist also own cars and tend to see the problem from both sides.

The reality is that cycling should be encouraged if we are to reduce congestion, air pollution and address the growing obesity problem. Doing this improves things for all road users, tax payers and society more generally. The three biggest barriers we face in making a change are myths about how dangerous cycling is and to other road users, but also the public and particularly political will to see and make the most of the opportunity to realise the benefits for all that can be achieved if more are encouraged to cycle as they do in other countries.

[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.
It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?[/p][/quote]We get so many incendiary and unfounded comments is it little wonder that we get wound up.
Yes some cyclists don't stick to the Highway Code. The same applies to all road users. et we get singled out and stigmatised.
The reality is that most cyclist also own cars and tend to see the problem from both sides.
The reality is that cycling should be encouraged if we are to reduce congestion, air pollution and address the growing obesity problem. Doing this improves things for all road users, tax payers and society more generally. The three biggest barriers we face in making a change are myths about how dangerous cycling is and to other road users, but also the public and particularly political will to see and make the most of the opportunity to realise the benefits for all that can be achieved if more are encouraged to cycle as they do in other countries.i-cycle

The Villan wrote:
I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.

It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?

Nope.

Just trying to point out that lots in the 'hate cyclists' lobby don't know what they're talking about.

Roads, Bridleways, footways, footpaths are all paid for out of general taxation. Which all cyclists pay anyway.

What some people wrongly call &quot;Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 80 years.

What they are usually thinning about is VED which now a tax on pollution. Low emission vehicles don't pay any VED and a bicycle certainly wouldn't pay any.

65% of cyclists are also car owners and drivers so pay the same tax as you do.

The more we cycle, the lower the congestion, pollution, defect on the balance of payments ( interns of imputed fuel) and demands on the NHS and the taxpayer we make.

Given the above there are lots of reasons why more should be encouraged to cycle rather than penalised for cycling when in reality its actually beneficial for the individual and society, including motorists to encourage more to cycle.

A point that the AA has recognised and partly because those who are taught to cycle at an age when they can't legally drive have a better road sense and make better drivers in the longer term.

Now going back to your original point. The case for making helmets compulsory has been looked at in detail by the Government. Helmets offer some protection at low impact but this also applies for pedestrians and car passengers. There are two countries in the world that have made it compulsory and cycling levels have dropped significantly with no change at all in the level of head or other injuries.

There is actually a more rational case for incentivising more to cycle and certainly to make better provision for safer cycling routes.

I obviously agree. Its amazing how many motorists think cyclists have a lesser right to be on the road because they don't pay 'road tax'. The reality is that there's no such thing. the roads are paid for out of general taxation. Yes this includes VED and tax on petrol and car purchase, but as most cyclists own cars they pay this anyway. There are also several ways that by cycling more we also save the taxpayer money and particularly in Worcestershire where the County no longer spends any of their own money on improving the cycle infrastructure despite more journeys including commuting being made on a bike. I can actually see a rational case for cyclists being given a tax refund.

[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote:
I-cycle , you may want to correct yourself seeing as you used the term in your previous comment.
It's funny how, when one throws incendiary comments into the mix, how the pro-cycle people really get wound up?[/p][/quote]Nope.
Just trying to point out that lots in the 'hate cyclists' lobby don't know what they're talking about.
Roads, Bridleways, footways, footpaths are all paid for out of general taxation. Which all cyclists pay anyway.
What some people wrongly call "Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 80 years.
What they are usually thinning about is VED which now a tax on pollution. Low emission vehicles don't pay any VED and a bicycle certainly wouldn't pay any.
65% of cyclists are also car owners and drivers so pay the same tax as you do.
The more we cycle, the lower the congestion, pollution, defect on the balance of payments ( interns of imputed fuel) and demands on the NHS and the taxpayer we make.
Given the above there are lots of reasons why more should be encouraged to cycle rather than penalised for cycling when in reality its actually beneficial for the individual and society, including motorists to encourage more to cycle.
A point that the AA has recognised and partly because those who are taught to cycle at an age when they can't legally drive have a better road sense and make better drivers in the longer term.
Now going back to your original point. The case for making helmets compulsory has been looked at in detail by the Government. Helmets offer some protection at low impact but this also applies for pedestrians and car passengers. There are two countries in the world that have made it compulsory and cycling levels have dropped significantly with no change at all in the level of head or other injuries.
There is actually a more rational case for incentivising more to cycle and certainly to make better provision for safer cycling routes.[/p][/quote]I obviously agree. Its amazing how many motorists think cyclists have a lesser right to be on the road because they don't pay 'road tax'. The reality is that there's no such thing. the roads are paid for out of general taxation. Yes this includes VED and tax on petrol and car purchase, but as most cyclists own cars they pay this anyway. There are also several ways that by cycling more we also save the taxpayer money and particularly in Worcestershire where the County no longer spends any of their own money on improving the cycle infrastructure despite more journeys including commuting being made on a bike. I can actually see a rational case for cyclists being given a tax refund.i-cycle